1. Petition to quash order rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused based on trial evidence. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 274
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.TUKARAMJI, J.
Madanakanti Tejasri - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12390 OF 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: P. Sriharinath
Respondent Counsel: M. Vivekananda Reddy (Assistant Public Prosecutor); Vijay B. Paropkari
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: P. Sriharinath
Respondent Counsel: M. Vivekananda Reddy (Assistant Public Prosecutor); Vijay B. Paropkari
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused requires strong and cogent evidence establishing a prima facie case beyond mere suspicion; general, omnibus allegations lacking specific particulars are insufficient to justify the exercise of this extraordinary discretionary power.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused during trial - Extraordinary and discretionary power - To be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence emerges - Evidence must indicate more than mere suspicion and establish a strong prima facie case against the proposed accused (Paras 8 and 9).
(B) Scope of evidence for Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Power can be exercised based on examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, provided the evidence is of such quality that it discloses clear and convincing involvement - General, omnibus, and sweeping assertions lacking specific particulars regarding the precise role, time, place, or manner of participation are insufficient to meet the legal threshold for summoning additional accused (Paras 9, 10 and 11).
Facts of the case:
The de facto complainant lodged a report alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and caste-based abuse. While the police charge-sheeted the husband and parents-in-law, other named individuals were exonerated. During the trial, the de facto complainant and other witnesses gave testimony implicating the exonerated persons. Based on this deposition, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon these individuals as additional accused, which was dismissed by the trial court.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the witnesses was found to be general and omnibus in nature, failing to attribute distinct overt acts to the proposed accused with sufficient clarity or consistency. Such vague allegations do not satisfy the requirement of "strong and cogent evidence" necessary to justify the summoning of additional accused to face trial.
Issues: Whether the statements made by witnesses during the trial provided a sufficient prima facie basis to invoke the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the evidence must be strong and cogent, surpassing mere suspicion. Vague and unspecific allegations that do not detail a specific role or overt act are legally unsustainable and insufficient to trigger this discretionary power.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
ORDER :
N.TUKARAMJI, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to seek quashment of the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 361 of 2023 in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
2. Heard Mr. P. Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.
3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner/de facto complainant lodged a police report on 04.01.2017 alleging acts of dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and caste based abuse against her husband, parents-in-law (arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3), respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and certain other family members. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only against accused Nos. 1 to 3, namely the husband and parents-in-law, while exonerating the other named persons (L.Ws. 4 to 8). During the course of trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, she made statements against the persons who were initially named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. Relying upon such deposition, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to summon the said persons as additional accused to face trial along with the existing accused. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said application.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously rejected the application without assigning cogent and legally sustainable reasons. It is further submitted that the trial Court did not correctly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court to summon any person appearing to be guilty of an offence on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.
4.2. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana , (2021) 8 SCC 321, it is contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage after commencement of trial, even on the basis of examination-in-chief, without waiting for cross-examination. It is thus argued that the impugned order is contrary to settled legal principles and results in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court.
5.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after a proper and judicious evaluation of the material on record. He further pleaded that mere reference to the involvement of certain persons in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is insufficient to summon them as additional accused unless the evidence is strong, cogent, and indicates their clear complicity in the commission of the offence. However, prayed for passing appropriate orders on merits.
6. I have carefully perused the material available on record.
7. The petitioner seeks summoning of additional accused solely on the basis of the statements made by P.W.1 (the de facto complainant) in her examination-in-chief. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 indicates that she alleged that accused No.1 and his relatives demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She further stated that certain relatives of accused No.1 participated in driving her out of the matrimonial home and that one individual allegedly abused her by referring to her caste. It is pertinent to note that in her cross- examination, suggestions of the defence regarding the involvement of the proposed accused were denied, thereby pleaded consistency in her testimony. P.W.2, in his deposition, made a general st
